What you're asking us is "Why wouldn't you want GWB II, but possibly worse!?!?" You do realize that, right?

I'm sorry, what was so wrong about Bush that hasn't been exacerbated by Uncle Tom?

Let's take a trip back for a moment, and imagine that 9/11 didn't happen, therefore we weren't pulled into Afghanistan, nor did we step into Iraq, nor did our Economy take a significant hit because of the wtc's and so on. Wouldn't it have been interesting to see the world without that reference?

I say this because many people on this site, especially Illnois Eric and Lomas Browns, screamed, ranted, raved, crapped out bright blue twinkies and darn near urinated on themselves every time the Patriot Act was mentioned.

But now, now we are 3.5 years into the biggest criminal to take power from the people, who runs rough shod over the Constitution, and has run up more debt than any other PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM, COMBINED, and yet their silent. Crickets I tell you!

Santorum has not said, when I am President, I'm going to monitor your lifestyle. Make you go to church, beat you with a Bible and so on. He has said, I am going to overturn Obamacare, drill for oil, create jobs and so on. BUT he's a man of sincere faith, integrity, and passion, who LOVES THIS COUNTRY, and that's a bad thing?

I guess America will get the President WE DESERVE, just like the last 4 years. Glad this isn't my real home!

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

March 8th, 2012, 5:05 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

WarEr4Christ wrote:

What you're asking us is "Why wouldn't you want GWB II, but possibly worse!?!?" You do realize that, right?

I'm sorry, what was so wrong about Bush that hasn't been exacerbated by Uncle Tom?

Let's take a trip back for a moment, and imagine that 9/11 didn't happen, therefore we weren't pulled into Afghanistan, nor did we step into Iraq, nor did our Economy take a significant hit because of the wtc's and so on. Wouldn't it have been interesting to see the world without that reference?

I say this because many people on this site, especially Illnois Eric and Lomas Browns, screamed, ranted, raved, crapped out bright blue twinkies and darn near urinated on themselves every time the Patriot Act was mentioned.

But now, now we are 3.5 years into the biggest criminal to take power from the people, who runs rough shod over the Constitution, and has run up more debt than any other PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM, COMBINED, and yet their silent. Crickets I tell you!

Santorum has not said, when I am President, I'm going to monitor your lifestyle. Make you go to church, beat you with a Bible and so on. He has said, I am going to overturn Obamacare, drill for oil, create jobs and so on. BUT he's a man of sincere faith, integrity, and passion, who LOVES THIS COUNTRY, and that's a bad thing?

I guess America will get the President WE DESERVE, just like the last 4 years. Glad this isn't my real home!

I think the bigger point is that 9/11 did happen, and GWB acted more like a religious zealot "talking to God" than he did a rational President. His actions cost us $900 billion dollars, and basically ruined the Republican Party and their ground to stand on. Republicans after Bush, at least for the short-term, can no longer be said to be "fiscally responsible" when he's off blowing that kind of cash on a religious crusade. Further, we're in a tense situation with Iran right now, and Israel is involved. Would you want yet another religious zealot heading the wheel in these times of turmoil?

Maybe you would, but the majority of Americans and the rest of the World certainly does not.

March 8th, 2012, 5:24 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

WarEr4Christ wrote:

What you're asking us is "Why wouldn't you want GWB II, but possibly worse!?!?" You do realize that, right?

I'm sorry, what was so wrong about Bush that hasn't been exacerbated by Uncle Tom?

Ok, I didn't make it past this remark. First off, nice slur there...

Now, as for Bushie:Start 2 wars without paying for themPass Medicaid Part D, without paying for itCut taxes, without cutting spending.

and that's just for starters....GWB may have been a lot of things, but fiscally conservative what not one of them.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 8th, 2012, 5:26 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

Wags:

My understanding of the phrase is one who sells out his own people. He has clearly done this through much of his legislation. My understanding of the word may be wrong but this is not a racially motivated slur I assure you.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

March 8th, 2012, 9:54 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

WarEr4Christ wrote:

Wags:

My understanding of the phrase is one who sells out his own people. He has clearly done this through much of his legislation. My understanding of the word may be wrong but this is not a racially motivated slur I assure you.

Fair enough. Perhaps it just struck me as odd (for lack of a better term) coming from someone claiming to have a deep relationship w/Jesus. Me thinks He wouldn't take too kind of this sort of statement, then again considering as I left my "born again" phase quite a few years ago, what would I know about it.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 9th, 2012, 10:09 am

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I just find it odd that you couched so much of your argument in terms of "religion" when you're opposed to all or most "new" laws that restrict freedom. Do you also oppose the seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and the drinking age as well (in most countries it's 18, or 19... I think we're the only 21 country on the planet)?

Yes I do. For the seatbelt / helmet laws, let "Darwinism" work. For the acceptable age (drinking age), use education not legislation.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Your constitutional test is tough... There really aren't many specific "freedoms" granted by the Constitution, and the "freedoms" read into the document are arbitrary at best (right to privacy... to what extent, etc.)...

How about the Bill of Rights?

Quote:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Those seem rather specific to me.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 9th, 2012, 10:28 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

So due process, free speech and the right to bear arms are enough for you?

March 9th, 2012, 10:57 am

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

wjb21ndtown wrote:

So due process, free speech and the right to bear arms are enough for you?

The Bill of Rights and by extension the Constitution is enough for me; what else is there?

(why do I feel like I'm getting set up??? )

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 9th, 2012, 11:09 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

Wags

I know that you like to refer to my relationship with Jesus especially when I do our say something that questionable. I was aware that my statement may be received wrong and I even wanted to delete it in an effort to not be offensive. I am responsible for my actions and statements and how they are received but please understand that my short comings as a man do bleed over, and my actions do sometimes not represent my faith well, for that I apologize.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

March 10th, 2012, 10:34 am

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

Read the federalist papers. The constitution was never intended to create a list of rights for the people. The people (or by extension the states) are supposed to hve unlimited rights. The constitution was made to give rights to the federal government. Anything not explictly laid out in the constitution, the feds are not supposed to be able to do. This is why many of the founders opposed adding a bill of rights because they (1) thought it was redudant and (2) feared that it would be interpretted as being all the rights that people have. Unfortunately, most people have forgotten this.

March 10th, 2012, 2:42 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

WarEr4Christ wrote:

Wags

I know that you like to refer to my relationship with Jesus especially when I do our say something that questionable. I was aware that my statement may be received wrong and I even wanted to delete it in an effort to not be offensive. I am responsible for my actions and statements and how they are received but please understand that my short comings as a man do bleed over, and my actions do sometimes not represent my faith well, for that I apologize.

My only point in even mentioning it is to show how confusing it can be when you, in one breath, condemn anything and anyone that isn't Christian, then, in the next, say something totally contrary. I understand its a struggle, but for consistency sake perhaps take that extra second or two before hitting "Post". Again, just my 2 cents, take it for what its worth; no ill will intended.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 11th, 2012, 5:25 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

Wise words, but often times the threads cause a response, that illicit's a response. Having said that, maybe my "inconsistency" although unfortunate, can illustrate transparency. In other words, I'm not holier than thou, I'm full of errors and mistakes and willing to own up to them. For me it's an integrity thing, more than anything else. Trust me, the last thing I want to do is illustrate my Heavenly Father in a bad light. Christianity has done that enough already in many aspects, but that's because Christianity is populated by people who sin. It's a personal walk with Jesus that takes broken lumps of clay and molds them into something useful and beautiful.

But I did take your point!

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

March 11th, 2012, 7:11 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

Thought here:

What are your thoughts on this "potential ticket"?

Santorum/Gingrich: President / Vice President

Ron Paul: Secretary of Tresaury or Finance

Romeny: Secretary of State

OR

Santorum/ Rubio

Ron Paul: S of T or S of F

Gingrich: S of S

Romney: another Secretary posting?

I started thinking this when a Newt staffer (un-named) hinted at a Santorum/Gingrich ticket.

I've also heard over the course of this time frame that we have the perfect Republican Candidate in 4 men. Each brings his own strengths and character to the table, but not one has all four. So how could we incorporate the 4 in one, in the same term?

I started thinking this when a Newt staffer (un-named) hinted at a Santorum/Gingrich ticket.

I've also heard over the course of this time frame that we have the perfect Republican Candidate in 4 men. Each brings his own strengths and character to the table, but not one has all four. So how could we incorporate the 4 in one, in the same term?

Thoughts?

Personally, I don't like any ticket with Santorum at the top. The guy just really bothers me. But that aside, I think the first one is probably best. A Sec. of State needs to be diplomatic and have a way of promoting our interests around the world without being a dick. Romney would be good at that, but I think Newt would be a disaster in that role. Paul as Sec. of Finance would be ok too.

As an aside, I find it interesting that the headlines after last night make it seem like Santorum was the big winner, yet Romney basically maintained his lead. Maybe I don't understand the process or something, but the way I see it is that the goal is to win delegates, not be crowned the winner of one state or another. Last night, Santorum won Miss. and Ala. and Romney won Hawaii. But the delegate count was 43 for Romney, 36 for Santorum. So on a night that Santorum supposedly won, he fell further behind. Just an interesting little factoid of the night and how things are reported.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

March 14th, 2012, 10:01 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Thoughts on Santorum

TDJ: i understand his faith really scares some people, and some people even infer that he will use the position of POTUS to drive everyone into the church, and that's not true at all. But misinformation will do that for you.

This ticket could go either way, in fact I think it's interesting that all four guys represent something that America wants, and what we need to do is figure out how we can effectively put all four in office, and rescue this country.

Having said that, I am curious as to how Romney can differentiate between himself and Obama. I know this is a talking point that's being used, but in truth, there isn't a huge gap between Romney and Obama, and so we'd be getting a different face, but basically the same thing, which leads to Pablo's point.

However, Santorum is Ethical, has Integrity, owned up to and accepted his failures and vowed to do better, and is the ANTI-Obama, PRO-American candidate. I'm not saying that the others are not, but of the two "front runners" Santorum is more ANTI-Obama than Romney, and that's probably going to weigh heavily in November.